Punjab and Haryana High Court Freezes IAS Promotions of Non-Civil Service Officers, Flags Breach of Recruitment Rules
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has put an immediate halt to the Punjab government’s move to elevate non-civil service Class-I gazetted officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), raising serious questions over adherence to statutory recruitment norms. The interim order deals a setback to the Bhagwant Mann-led state government and brings the promotion process under strict judicial scrutiny.
Petition Triggers Judicial Intervention
The stay was granted by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda while hearing a writ petition filed by the Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch Officers Association along with other petitioners. The plea challenges the legality and transparency of the state’s recommendation process for IAS promotions.
According to the petitioners, the state government failed to follow the mandatory framework laid down under Rule 8(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, read with the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. They alleged that the selection exercise was arbitrary, selectively favouring a small group of officers, allegedly at the behest of influential individuals.
Questions Over Merit-Based Selection
The petition argues that promotions under Rule 8(2) are meant to be exceptional and can only be granted in special circumstances, strictly on the basis of “outstanding merit and ability.” The petitioners contended that this threshold was neither objectively assessed nor demonstrably satisfied in the present case before forwarding the recommendations to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Controversy Over Notification and Shortlisting
As per the plea, the Punjab government issued a circular on March 3, 2025, inviting applications from Group-A (Class-I) officers. However, the circular was allegedly not published in newspapers nor effectively communicated to all eligible officers, limiting awareness of the opportunity.
The screening process reportedly shortlisted only 32 officers, with a disproportionate number drawn from the Water Supply and Sanitation Department and the Excise and Taxation Department. The petitioners claimed that the shortlisting lacked transparency and did not reflect a comprehensive evaluation of merit across departments.
Vacancy Cap Under Rule 8(2) Ignored?
A key issue raised before the court relates to the statutory ceiling on promotions. Under Rule 8(2) read with Rule 9(1) of the IAS Recruitment Rules, promotions from non-civil services cannot exceed 15% of the IAS vacancies available in a given calendar year.
For the recruitment year 2024–25, only eight IAS vacancies were available, which would permit just one promotion under this category. The petitioners alleged that the state government violated this limit by recommending multiple officers, thereby exceeding the permissible quota.
Punjab Government’s Stand
Defending its decision, the Punjab government submitted that Rule 8(2) allows up to 15% of IAS posts to be filled through promotion from eligible state officers. The state also maintained that the notification inviting applications had been duly uploaded on the official government website, asserting that the process was conducted within the legal framework.
High Court Orders Status Quo
After hearing preliminary arguments, the High Court directed the Punjab government to file its detailed response by January 22, 2026. Until further orders, the bench categorically restrained the state from acting on the committee’s recommendations.
The court observed that:
“The respondents shall not take any further steps in pursuance of the recommendations of the committee till the next date of hearing.”
Broader Significance of the Ruling
Rule 8(2) promotions to the IAS are intended to be rare, merit-based exceptions rather than routine appointments. The High Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding transparency, fairness, and strict compliance with statutory rules in elite civil service appointments. The outcome of the case could have wider implications for similar promotion exercises across states.
